tv [untitled] May 15, 2011 8:30pm-9:00pm PDT
certain amount of water from the watershed. there is an insurance where we get what is left. last year, 2010, according to sfpuc statistics, the total retail demand of 77.7, subtracting that from 81, you get 3.3 left. the underutilized or unutilized areas, before the changes, over $60,000. please multiplying that by $2.40 per person, which is the average city-wide persons in a household, according to the puc, and then we will multiplied that by next gallons per day,
and you get over 60,000, times 2.4, times 50, over 7 million gallons per day more that we need to supply if we are going to max out that 60,000., 95 units that are already underutilized at capacity. where are we going to get that? [bell] \ president chiu: again, if there are any members of the public who wish to speak, please stand up. and this is the 25th anniversary of the children's fund, and a number of other commissioners of asked for a short 15-minute recess so they can attend that, so after they have spoken, we will come back. go ahead. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am the president of a council.
yogi berra said when you get to a fork in the road, take it. you have a decision to make today, and is a very simple decision. you decide to take the eir, or you decide not to keep it. now, at this point, pretty much all of the points have been made. i think to approve the eir, you are inviting a lawsuit. in 2004, the eir was just passed last summer, so you know the last thing that is going to happen here. i think would you really need to decide is to take a step back, and see what happens in june. see what you can do to mitigate these changes, and scene of the planning department can work with the citizens.
i read the eir. they were approving and agreeing. that was changed. that was changed not by neighbors, that is for sure. they did not know what is going on. do not approve this eir. thank you. president chiu: best buy next speaker. >> we represent over 40 neighborhoods. we urge the eir ratification. send it back to planning for revisions since it in adequately analyzes the impact it fails to consider a reasonable range of alternatives. directs planning to provide for only that amount of increase capacity needs to satisfy from
2007 to 2014, which is all that is needed for these grants. this document, this interation is anti-middle class. nothing that you see before you today was discussed at that time. neither i nor any organization to which i belong was a member of the appellants group before the 2004 housing element, eir. if this goes on, if this goes past today, i do not think anyone in this room. do not let it go to litigation. we urge you, in order to avoid years of litigation, we urge
you to reverse this document and the appeal. thank you. president chiu: next speaker. >> thank you. hello. i am karen. i am the code dr. kapoor of some design guidelines that were adopted previously. i am here to support the appeal, and the only point i would like to make is pretty obvious, and that is you have heard about the colossal lack of public confidence expressed, and i hope that you will give that very serious thought. they keep. -- thank you. president chiu: and next speaker. >> president chiu, supervisors,
my name is john. i urge you to uphold this appeal of the certification of the environmental report from the planning commission, and i urge you also, all of the people here who spoke about the housing element and about its merits or lack of merit, this is the only opportunity for them to speak on the housing element, because today, those comments will be ignored by your decision, and i believe it is next monday. i hope you will announce this so people know where to go, and it should have been announced earlier. right now, it addresses what we have here. the environmental impact report. it is basically asking to correct the section of the pact,
and a certified in eir that was incomplete and inadequate. the attorney for 30 organizations. actually taking place with one person represented by an attorney. in a court of law, what those violations might be. you certify something that is illegal. in 2004, with the previous housing element, and now you're asking to do it again. a process of getting things done in san francisco. when you violate the laws of
the state. thank you. presidentchiu: thank you. are there any other speakers on behalf of the appellant? as i said, i would like to take a 15-minute recess so that our colleagues can go down to the celebration, and, colleagues, why do we not start again at why do we not start again at 6:00? president chiu: welcome back to the board of supervisors meeting.
current proposal for this plan element. the draft environmental impact report was published on june 30, 2010, and the eir was certified unanimously by the planning commission on march 24, 2011. the housing element is part of the general plan, and it is required under state law to meet certain standards for its content. a major part of those standards of the city has to demonstrate that it has the capacity me to be assigned regional housing needs, which in the case of san francisco is approximately 31,000 housing units. the housing unit also has to identify city policies that will help id -- helped it move towards that goal. the planning department in its capacity analysis concluded that under existing zoning, the city could accommodate over 60,000
housing units, which far exceeds it, and therefore, there would be no rezoning needed, and no such rezoning is encouraged in the housing element. what we prepared was a problematic eir with the housing element policies. not in a specific development projects. what we looked at was a change in policies, first from the 1990 elements and second from the 1990 to 2009 housing element in order to provide the environmental review for adoption of the 2009 housing element. what the eir concluded was that the housing elements could contribute to a significant cumulative impact in the 2025 horizon year and also found there could be noise impact that could be mitigated. all other impacts were found through analysis to be less
significant. the appeal letter received by the clerk of the board was followed by a supplement and then another yesterday. their responses to the submittal were delivered to board members this morning. at this point, i will turn this over to jessica. there is also the department response. good evening. >> i am with the planning department. the appeal response and the second appeal response. there is the potential for new significant impacts.
3, the amount of the available water supply. four, the range of alternatives. the response memorandum addresses all of these in detail. the analysis in the yeah are adequately considers all reasonably foreseeable the elements and the potential for the housing element to contribute to its cumulative impact. if in order to identify the physical environment impacts that could occur either as a result of policy changes from the 1990 to the 2004, the department needs to identify where it capacity for new housing exists, and we did that through what is called to the we saw site analysis. it is basically an analysis of the additional amounts of housing that could be developed under existing zoning. the department also looked at environmental constraints and overlaid those were the areas of
capacity to identify the environment to constraints and development. the analysis in the eir dealt with the changes in the housing policy with civic and environmental impacts. the eir also included an analysis of foreseeable development and the potential for the 2004 to 2009 housing element to result in him into cumulatively considerable impact. the pipeline is not part of the project but does represent a cumulative scenario. all ongoing development projects, re-development products, and area plants, specifically those mentioned by the appellate. it is important to consider the long range the roman projection, and these are in the projections. when considering the available capacity, and the long-range projections, the eir concludes
that the anticipated population growth is not attributable to the element policies from the 2004 and 2009 housing element policies. the appellant is incorrect in that the city did not use something for this. they analyzed the potential for new development, and the department disagrees with the appellant claims that the eir does not analyze growth attributable. regarding the other issues raised by the appellant, the memoranda transmitted to the board on may 2 explains the changes to the 2009 housing element and explains that the draft provisions do not increase the severity of the environmental impact analyzed in the eir. the changes are minor and would not have -- there is a response
document which fully addresses these changes on pages 265 and 267. with respect to the alternative analysis, the eir analyzed at an equal level of detail both of the housing elements. the eir also includes three alternatives. one is a continuation of the 1990 resident policy. the second is a reduced alternative, which is the 2004 housing element without the court computed policies, and a third is the 2009 housing element with additional policies that are towards achieving a higher percentage. as it says in the comments and responses document, the alternatives are not required under because they it -- under ceqa does not apply.
there is a housing element that complies with housing element law, or three. the eir includes a reasonable budget of alternatives, and none of the alternatives or those suggested by the appellant would reduce the trade the impact identified in the eir. they specifically involve issues two and six. these were fully evaluated by the san francisco public utilities commission, which found that the slow release requirements would not result in some of the impacts to the available water supply. furthermore, the eir looked at would be likely to result in an
increase in water use in the long-range projections. the impact does not present any new information that would change the conclusions in the eir. lastly, the appellate claims that the 2009 housing element policies are intended to support the unreasonably lead community's strategy a draft will not be available until 2013. the appellants claim that the 2009 housing element policies are intended to support it. it is unfounded. the scenario to which the poet refers to was published after the 2009 housing element comments and responses as well as drafted the 2009 housing element and therefore does not represent foreseeable the balance that would need to be considered as part of ceqa. this does include all reasonably
foreseeable developments. for some reason, and hand, it is not the merits of the project itself. [bell] president chiu: colleagues, any questions to planning steps? >> a number of changes, including the previous definition of the quarter to major muni bus lines. there were other issues limiting the requirements and making the neighborhood changed to
community input, if you will. why were those done? why were they amended? reasonable input. i do not want to say a reasonable, but input, at least, from the people in the neighborhoods. >> supervisor farrell, from the planning department, i will address the issues surrounding this changes, and then i went to turn over to sarah to discuss the content of the changes. in terms of the environmental impact report, specifically on the issue of the transit routes, " there from draft 1 to 823 of the housing element, there was
policy language that discussed inclusion of major bus routes. the actual substantive content of the draft to our understanding did not change with regard to inclusion of those major bus routes. that is the first aspect of it. >> this did not change from june to january. >> correct. in terms of the environmental impact report, that did our standard it streamlined analysis which is based on additional ridership on all routes in and we have identified those. some of those war on subway routes and some more on bus corridors.
this considered bus routes regardless of the policy. the other changes, in terms of the change from neighborhood supported to community-based, as we discussed in our response, that does not change the potential for physical environmental impact. in terms of environmental impact, we feel that there is actually maybe slightly more protection in terms of environmental impact with prevailing bulk than with prevailing density.
would you like sarah to address the additional issues? >> yes. the question is also before why the changes between june and february. >> i will ask sarah or a director to address. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i was responsible for the development and drafting of the document itself not the eir. the change from neighborhood- supported to community-based. i believe you use the term transit corridor. >> this is from a light rail to the major bus line. >> you correctly site that there was a draft between three and
two. which was discussed in detail, the rationale for the change, i'm not sure how much you want me to get into that, but we have heard from several constituents that they felt that they could to support or excluded them. staff, the planning commission agreed that this included the neighborhood and preferences strongly the importance of neighborhood support. we did not want through inadvertent use of a term exclude others for -- from commenting. environmental implications are not there. with regard to the bus lines, there has been no change. there was policy 1.5 which was released in june, 2009 which
included the exact same policy and we can include the reference and include the exact same muni lines that exact same language was included in draft 1. there was no change in policy. we would be happy to compare the wording. in terms of community input, draft 3, which had about 30 words of change, very very minor changes, was released on february 2nd. i might not have the exact date. the first week in february. we've sent out two directors meetings which were hosted by our planning director.
>> thank you. >> thank you. when a number of the members of the public were speaking, it was not clear if they were speaking about the sustainable communities program. it felt like some of the comments were being conflated. i want to make sure that we are more specific and exact about what we are dealing with here. there was some reference to it but some of the numbers that had been mentioned are timely because members have been looking over these numbers and the numbers of housing are significantly higher than the numbers of the -- methodology those were numbers which were being reference to this conversation here.
this is deleted between the time frame and the next 5-10 years. -- delineated between the time frame. this is not until 200035. this is a 25-year goal. no one has mentioned that. >> thank you for bringing that, supervisor. the requirement under state law is that it meets our allocation regional housing needs. that is an allocation of 31,000 units that are we are required to show that we have zoning capacity for by 2013. the sustainable communities strategies that are required under the state senate bill has a target date of 2035 or 61,000
housing units. this is a very different number but this is a different time frame than was planned. this is required to meet a projection of 2035. >> the senate bill has nothing to do with the incentives that are laid out, does it? >> there is discussion happening about the relationship between those two things but this really is a separate issue. >> what we understand is that if we adopt this element that gets us up to the methodology, that might go through the aggregate total later on of what the sustainable community is and that gives us the dollars that
escorts the mark higher goal and those areas that have been assigned but not for 2014 but for 2035. what i was hearing and this is a confusion and this numbers are sorted out. now. i want to make sure that we are clear about the category of numbers we are talking about. >> i appreciate this huge amount of work on what you ever dawned to comply with state law and also reach out to different sides of the spectrum. i am still concerned by many of the neighborhood groups. you have said that it is only 30 words that were changed from the first draft to the second draft and this is not substantive in and this is not substantive in the major changes that were